Hmmm... wonder if LavaBit can sue the Justice Department and the FBI for illegally restricting their commerce? IANAL, but damn sure wish I was...
True justice transcends "laws." There are unjust, unfair and unethical laws. Unfortunately, too many people believe that "the law is the law" and it cannot be changed. The civil rights movement wouldn't have (moved) if it weren't for the realization of the contrary (that some laws _should_ be changed).
I appreciate your thoughtful reply. Let me say, buddy, I don't disagree at all with anything you've said. My point was that the article as posted on slashdot is a pile of hyperbole (the kind of shit I hate reading here anymore).
What I'm trying to convey is that I'd be more than happy for Bushy to have any tool he thinks he needs to separate _criminals/terrorists/(the french, just kidding)_ from the means to further their causes. The difference is that it better be within the bounds of the Constitution; making a executive declaration that "I am king" would have the weight of law if it were not for the attentiveness of congress and the judiciary.
It's obvious I did a poor job conveying my true viewpoint; we need to get all the old-ass, incompetent, lying, power- and money- hungry assholes out of DC. There aren't enough level-headed people in Washington to save this great country. The problem is we need more people like you (and me?) in Congress and the Courts. We need more like-minded lawyers advising executives like Bushy saying "hey man, I'm pretty sure you can't do that," and "if you do that, you're going to throw us back 500 years." We need to put term limits on Congress to ensure we get fresh minds and perspectives in there.
It's obvious I'm a little romantic and naive about how United States works and what government's role here; they don't do what I'd do if it were me, and yet it's supposed to be a government "of the people." I find it so hard to believe that I'm the only person that feels the way I do; I sure can't find anyone in the present political landscape that has the same view of the world as me.
Come on now slashdot now that's a pretty distorted article title.
Please tell me how an executive order can overturn the bill of fucking rights? Can you say shitstorm? He'd never get it out the door. Beleive that the president has constitutional lawyers on tap and doing congress' job would overstep the bounds (only Congress can _change_ the Constitution).
Both the XO + the UK article spell out what the tool is and how its used. Admittedly it would stomp on the rights of _CITIZENS_ of the United States as due process is required, especially sec 2c. Of course you can simply add in a step to revoke citizenship of U.S. nationals guilty of treason and you're covered.
Supposing that these tools are only used against _foreign_ "terrorists" as the article states, I don't see the real problem. Interestingly, notice the provision on the 5th: "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;" dude the pres is covered (for better or worse) no matter.
Big fucking deal. Let me preface the remainder by saying I'm not an economist or business person. I never had a business class, but I would expect that a company would not price its products wholesale below its manufacturing cost. Thus I would expect a margin (perhaps modest) built-in already.
In both of these cases, the manufacturer could simply jack up the wholesale price and simply say "here's the new price and oh by the way we did this because demand was increasing hint, hint, hint..." The contracted retail stores would think twice before selling products to wholesalers who are undercutting them and increasing their overhead costs.
I don't understand how an unwitting third party could be in violation of a contract they obviously didn't sign or possibly know about. And either way you slice it, these supposed manufacturers are still selling their product through their partners. If anything, its their partners that are at risk here.
Two of the largest, most successful companies in the world with respect to computer security and they've not responded to said questions. Hmm...
(BTW, I refuse to argue whether MS is "successful" under any circumstances; they own what, 80% market share in the PC server and workstation OS world, that's success regardless how they attained it.)
Hold on Tonto. Remember, you're not buying SOFTWARE (OS/X), you're paying for the RIGHTS to USE the software WITH RESTRICTIONS. Thats the EULA you click through. We can argue validity of shrink-wrap licenses till the cows come home, but it's standing case law now. The problem is, someone is defeating security mechanisms to break OS/X to get it to run in non-Apple hardware. This is, like it or not, against the law.
Consider an analagy. It's not a great one perhaps, but it's what I will use. You _could_ buy any muffler you want and put it on any car you want. Will it work? Maybe. You might have to modify the car to make it work, but hey, you can; you've got tools, you've got documentation, and you OWN the car, parts, etc. Will it be supported by either manufacturer (car or muffler)? Hell no. Because you're not using it in spec. Hmm , sounds like some kind of restrictions. *cough* warranty card.
Consider now software. You "buy" OS/X retail, though you only have your whitebox box. Someone hooks you up with a cracked OS/X/x86 CD. Where's the connection? First of all, remember you didn't BUY the software, you payed for the RIGHT to USE WITH RESRTRICTIONS. It's in there, reverse engineering ain't cool. And it certainly wouldn't be fair use to subvert TPM, at least not within the confines of the EULA you clicked through. You can't possibly have an expectation of support for Apple-hardware based software when you're really trying to run the "officially" _unavaible_ x86 retail version.
That being said, the crackers have created a market expectation, especially with the press in Wired, for OS/X on x86 (at least, unencumbered by pricey Apple hardware). Joe Blow says to me, "Why _can't_ I run OS/X on that now-spare PC I just upgraded from," or Joey Blowsophsen, a hardware geek, "Man OS/X is the shit, I wish they'd release it retail." I'd have to counter "Because Apple says you have to have their pretty logo stamped on everything that is in, on, and near your computer."
I too dislike many of Apple's business practices, but the reality is that they make a desirable product. Argue against that, and I'll point you back at the fact someone's cracking OS/X to make it available. Perhaps a better solution is, don't pirate the software. Just don't use it, period. Same goes for Windows by the way. Use Open Source if you don't like them; linux is a great and flexible platform. Perhaps by using market forces, we might be able to persuade Apple to release an "official" retail version for the rest of us DIYers. Of course, that puts them in a more direct position against Microsoft in the OS world, but, if it doesn't kill them will make them stronger.
And to the moderators, what the fuck? How can you mod this guy as +5 Interesting? Did he really add anything of value to the posting? Interesting? I don't buy it folks, sorry.
How about a government "owned" infrastructure that gets managed by companies (ISP's) that choose to make it their business? Those companies then charge their customers a "transport" fee for access to/through their network(s), and company-to-company charge a similiar "transport" fee to each other. Sound familiar? What am I paying to Verizon for my DSL? Doesn't this sound similar to how gas and power companies companies move their product around? I honestly don't know who owns the infrastructure (in either power/gas or "internet" example), however I _DO_ know that in all cases, companies have been subsized with my tax dollars to create this infrastructure.
All I'm saying is that the U.S. government should say "oops" and claim ownership for this infrastructure, JUST THE SAME AS INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS. Fucking DUH!
I don't know about anyone else, however I view information such as you've listed as being privileged. Said information may not be so described legally as being privileged or confidential, but that's just how I feel about them. SSN is the most critical of course, but you said discount it. Account numbers, mailing address, Names, birthdates, familial relations and phone numbers could all be gleaned by some amount of investigation by a person or persons so inclined at getting it; it'd be a lot of work, but it could be done. You then have a picture of "me," who I am, what I do, why I do, etc. You might be able to do something with this, like call up Dominoes and order a pizza, or get online and buy a book from Amazon. If you call the right guy at 1st National Bank of Bumfuck, you might just be able to break into my account and steal my money; how much is that guy getting paid to look out for my interests?
All this being said, if a company doesn't do what I consider adequate protection of my information, I don't want to do business with them. It's not that a malicious user couldn't get it any other way; I just don't want to make it any easier for them to get to me. Let them go hog-heaven on the blue-hairs that don't know any better.
And I haven't even talked about your real question. What could one do with a "lowly" account number? Well you tell me. Let's say that's all Joey Malicious has on me. Has he hacked in to your network? Does he have access to your applications and know how to use them? Do you KNOW he hasn't? All I know is that when I call the credit card company, they want the account number and SSN. Are they typing it in with me and can't proceed without me, or are they verifying my answers against what they see on the screen?
What if Joe Malicious works for your company? I'd say you, as a member in the financial industry, are in a much better place to answer this question. YOU need to tell ME that my fears are unfounded, that technically Jane Helper can't review my account info and do a transfer without my account number AND SSN AND mothers maiden name AND first-born sons' DNA because she has to enter it into the system as well. Of course, most financial institutions don't disclose their security practices (or lack thereof) for obvious reasons. None of us outside your "closed-source" way of operating can truly trust the process. All we know is that the threat is real, and we have little control of the problem.
Unfortunately, this is only something that could be dealt with at a trial. Whose rights are more valuable, the content provider, or the paying customer? A person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and security on his or her home computer. Any attempt to circumvent this privacy or security should be construed as trespass. On the flipside, recording artists and the companies that represent them have an expectation that their work is compensated, and that "legal" means to protect their interests be respected. I'm not arguing for the DMCA here, however it _IS_ law. By removing the Sony-installed malware, Mark has broken the law. But so is trespass illegal, so tell me, which is a greater abomination?
I'd vote for trespass, but I also don't have any content to sell. Mark, how's the adminpak selling? I hope you've got some good DRM on your CD's if you're any indication of the talent that's out there...
I was talking to some folks at work who were crabbing about how they had replaced all their old tapes and records for CD's over the years, and how much all that cost. One lady's kid has more than her, yet she paid (of course for all of it). I informed them that they had the opportunity to get in on some cash back since the RIAA sucks donkey balls; of course I didn't say it like that.
Point is... they didn't know about the settlement. I said that's what happens when you don't get involved in your government. Laws that allow companies to do illegal business get passed. Worse, the government itself puts laws in place that are horribly detrimental to the very people it seeks to protect. Same thing happened in Germany between 1919 - 1933; those damned commies, can't trust 'em. For some reason, rationale people didn't make rationale decisions and somehow that crazy fuck Hitler got into office.
We all gotta do our part. Get involved. Watch your government, or better, be your government!
Once again, mod this guy up... especially since you have some +2 (+1, whocares) interesting responses. I'm not sure if I understand you _defending_ the DMCA or not. Perhaps we can agree that content providers _shouldn't_ have to worry about their content being stolen.
What is the _real_ issue though? Is it that the companies/cartels whom the RIAA/MPAA represents are simply using the U.S. government to maintain their _monopolies_ on music _distribution_? I like your analgy "in the physical world," but let's be realistic...
Content providers now have tools that allow them to procede with SCOesque lawsuit scare tactics _rather_ than the "content production" we would like them to do. Let's be honest, when was the last real "good" movie released? Ok, perhaps I'm showing a little bit of bias (completely understating my position), but all I'm asking, especially in the case of the RIAA, is that "content providers" get off their lazy asses.
Ever notice how the "Pop" and/or "Top 40" charts have a "variety" of differing music styles represented? I'm sure we all here can agree that there _is_ no innovation left in the music industry. Fuck man, the last actual "good" music I heard lately was the DJ Dangermouse _remix_ album of Jay-Z's Black Albume entitled the Grey Album... and that got yanked pretty quick by the damned DMCA police.
The labels have turned into automatic content producers, creating "music" for the cash-crapping consumers. They don't even try anymore. Now that they have the DMCA, they don't even have to produce content to generate cash... they can just sue shitloads of kids and settle for 3G's here, 4G's there... Making money is making money, right? I just get tired of these big-damned corporations taking my money _AND_ my rights. I should be allowed to do whatever I want with a DVD or CD, so long as I don't violate copyrights. I shouldn't be hampered by some stupid copy protection that's just gonna piss me off till it's circumvented. Why can't the freaking RIAA/MPAA go after the illegal CD/DVD duplicator outfits like they've been doing? I guess it's just more fun to mess with the "little" people.
I think what Timothy was getting at was the criminality of a _German_ purchasing a Nazi poster should not be imposed upon an _American_. I can't imagine that the German government would waste time trying to prosecute an American on such grounds... in that sense perhaps Timothy was using a little hyperbole.
But let's say for arguements sake that they did. What right does the German government have to impress their mores upon American citizens? (I do not wish to argue about the capitalist, nationalist, imperialist pig-dog Americans doing that to other "poor and defenseless" nations. Any comments related as such will be ignored)
All I'm asking for is "dual criminality" language. As I stated in one of my other comments, I do not wish to see my Constitutional protections (freedoms, call them what you will) "protected" by some itty-bitty clause. As an American, all I have is my Constitutional freedoms... I expect that my government do its damndest to _protect_ them everywhere, even at the U.N.
Ok question... So what happens When Country A _cannot_ obtain (either legally or illegally) the keys(s) in question? Country A, then, by all rights is not holding up to their end of the bargain. Country B can then seek some kind of sanctions against Country A for not assisting in their investigation, pursuent to the provisions laid out by said treaty. Of course none of this is an issue if the treaty is not ratified (which is what some of us would like to see), or as a compromise, certain changes are made in the makeup of the treaty, such as the "dual criminality" clause that even the DoJ says is missing.
Basically what you're saying is that this treaty simply makes it "easier" for countries to ensure that criminals of their nation see justice in the country in which the crime was committed. But I ask you, do there not already exist extradition treaties? Why make _yet_another_treaty_? Heaven forbid a country enforce, keep up with, its _other_ treaty obligations...
First of all, mod this guy up. Second of all, the problem with Bush on "cybercrime" is basically the same as every other politician... he doesn't have any competant advisors advising him on the subject. (I'd further argue that none of his advisors on any topic are competant, but that belongs in another forum;-) )
You're quite right regarding the ICC. Basically he cannot see that his issue with the ICC is exactly the same as his issue _should_ be with this cybercrime treaty. If an American is not breaking the laws of the United States, why should he be held to another country's, perhaps, lower standards?
I'm not saying that the U.S. Gov't shouldn't help arrest a an American bank fraud for the French... But I am saying that a Chinese defector seeking political asylum and citizenship in America shouldn't have to worry about China asking for the U.S.'s help in bringing him back.
This arguement basically gets down to the "dual criminality" provision the DoJ says is missing. If it were me drafting/revising the treaty, I'd put that in there. As an American, I would not want an _INTERNATIONAL_ treaty relegating my Constitutional protections to a _clause_!
At the same time, we geeks still need to deal with our individual congressmen and senators to remove the Big Brother provisions strewn about in our U.S. Code. Why should decent, law-abiding Americans even have the worry of foreign, or our own government, sticking their proverbial noses in our affairs? Must every means of criminal investigation be codified? The FBI should _not_ have blanket access to any ISP's infrastructure where they can (for lack of a better term) etherape an entire ISP's clientele... There _must_ be a technical way, as well as legal restrictions, on how law enforcement may collect information for investigations.
Just out of curiosity, how is choosing between two completely undesirable things "freedom?" I assume you are making a point by putting freedom in quotes. But at the same time, I was making a point about how much most contracts, and I say this with all sincerity, suck balls. But I suppose comments like yours and the other folks are what I get for apparently not being clear enough. Thank you for reminding why I hate posting on slashdot.
So basically what you're arguing is that the only reason playfair is illegal while DeCSS isn't is because of the license? So I counter argue, what is a legal license? Of course because I signed on the dotted lines, it's _supposed_ to be legal, however should we be obligated to give up our first-born sons just because we want access to some content? What we need to admit, at least as a geek community, is that we are, in fact, consumers. We want to hear these songs, watch these movies, play these games. We also want to do it on our own terms. The only reason that contracts like that which are associated with the iTMS or CSS group is because noone has taken a major company to task on the validity of certain clauses in contracts. I mean really, if a music entertainer wants to make it big they sign, in essense an NDA clause in their contract. They can't admit they screwed royally to get you to hear their stuff. Perhaps it's just me, but I find that absurd. I hope this comment makes sense to someone out there; I'm supposed to be reading for class tomorrow and got sidetracked:-)
Holy Shit? The evil empire doing something "cool" like this? Naw, I'm betting they are simply paying some lip service... "See, we're not so bad; we even contribute to your sourceforge." But I'm a cynic. Judge for yourself.
Not that my comment counts, but it's pretty sad when comments are longer than the article posting. Maybe michael was busy when he accepted this submission. Interesting article though.
How about M$FT?? Didn't we just read that they have invested significantly in SCOs persuits? Just think... they could knock out Novell quickly, take on IBM directly for something BIG. M$FT has the cash reserves to let any and ALL lawsuits run in to the decades where other companies do not. Plus, the DoJ and Judicial systems are M$FT proverbial bitches. Getting an/many injunction(s) filed against all Linux distributers would not be a big deal for them. All that would need to happen would be to have Billy G. or Stevie B. take out one or more Supreme Court Justices, Senators, Presidents, etc. and you'd see plenty of pressure to have this "commie" Linux thing squashed like a bug.
You'll still have to have a license for any music you want to play... assuming that its artists who are covered by restrictive contracts. You'all know about the fees that clubs, bars, and other venues have to pay to the good folks at ASCAP, SESAC and BMI... There really won't be any competition for clearchan-hell. On the other hand, if you've really wanted to see what AXELF sounds like on the "airwaves," this might be just the thing for you.
Coming from a guy who doesn't much care for rap/hip-hop/whatever-you-want-to-call-it-today, this Dangermouse remix album is amazing. What few of the critics out there are acknowledging is the fact that today's hip-hop and rap artists seem really to be losing their creativity. I listen to the crap I play where I dj (mostly requests), and one song after another sound the same. I'm always looking for something interesting and this bit certainly fits the bill.
Of course, I've not said word one about the impending legal action that will most definitely occur. You wanna know what sampling fees can be like, read this and you'll understand why Dangermouse didn't ask for permission and pressed very few albums. I have a feeling that he'll still get poked hard, regardless of the albums limited availability. As one of the posts at Drowned in Sound rightly asserts
"Whether you like the style or not, whether you agree with what he has done artistically this is an aside. The recording industry is dead, it's fucked, it's ruled by grey suited accountants and lawyers."
What I hope for is that someone finally gets some balls and takes it to those gray-suited folks and says "Fuck you. This is art and cannot be thus constrained by your petty laws." Of course that'd never happen. A shit storm is on the way and artistic license is gonna get flushed.
Man, it sure is interesting that sco.com is still down, and yet they can issue more press releases. I guess that tells you where their business priorities are. No _real_ computer company would let their main website stay down for a couple of hours, let alone a week. -Robert
I thought only English citizens could be knighted. Talk about diluting a brand... And to the person that commented shes handing them out like candy, what else has she to do with her time?:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm... wonder if LavaBit can sue the Justice Department and the FBI for illegally restricting their commerce? IANAL, but damn sure wish I was...
True justice transcends "laws." There are unjust, unfair and unethical laws. Unfortunately, too many people believe that "the law is the law" and it cannot be changed. The civil rights movement wouldn't have (moved) if it weren't for the realization of the contrary (that some laws _should_ be changed).
I appreciate your thoughtful reply. Let me say, buddy, I don't disagree at all with anything you've said. My point was that the article as posted on slashdot is a pile of hyperbole (the kind of shit I hate reading here anymore).
What I'm trying to convey is that I'd be more than happy for Bushy to have any tool he thinks he needs to separate _criminals/terrorists/(the french, just kidding)_ from the means to further their causes. The difference is that it better be within the bounds of the Constitution; making a executive declaration that "I am king" would have the weight of law if it were not for the attentiveness of congress and the judiciary.
It's obvious I did a poor job conveying my true viewpoint; we need to get all the old-ass, incompetent, lying, power- and money- hungry assholes out of DC. There aren't enough level-headed people in Washington to save this great country. The problem is we need more people like you (and me?) in Congress and the Courts. We need more like-minded lawyers advising executives like Bushy saying "hey man, I'm pretty sure you can't do that," and "if you do that, you're going to throw us back 500 years." We need to put term limits on Congress to ensure we get fresh minds and perspectives in there.
It's obvious I'm a little romantic and naive about how United States works and what government's role here; they don't do what I'd do if it were me, and yet it's supposed to be a government "of the people." I find it so hard to believe that I'm the only person that feels the way I do; I sure can't find anyone in the present political landscape that has the same view of the world as me.
Come on now slashdot now that's a pretty distorted article title.
Please tell me how an executive order can overturn the bill of fucking rights? Can you say shitstorm? He'd never get it out the door. Beleive that the president has constitutional lawyers on tap and doing congress' job would overstep the bounds (only Congress can _change_ the Constitution).
Both the XO + the UK article spell out what the tool is and how its used. Admittedly it would stomp on the rights of _CITIZENS_ of the United States as due process is required, especially sec 2c. Of course you can simply add in a step to revoke citizenship of U.S. nationals guilty of treason and you're covered.
Supposing that these tools are only used against _foreign_ "terrorists" as the article states, I don't see the real problem. Interestingly, notice the provision on the 5th: "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;" dude the pres is covered (for better or worse) no matter.
Someone needs to change the article's damn title.
Big fucking deal.
Let me preface the remainder by saying I'm not an economist or business person. I never had a business class, but I would expect that a company would not price its products wholesale below its manufacturing cost. Thus I would expect a margin (perhaps modest) built-in already.
In both of these cases, the manufacturer could simply jack up the wholesale price and simply say "here's the new price and oh by the way we did this because demand was increasing hint, hint, hint..." The contracted retail stores would think twice before selling products to wholesalers who are undercutting them and increasing their overhead costs.
I don't understand how an unwitting third party could be in violation of a contract they obviously didn't sign or possibly know about. And either way you slice it, these supposed manufacturers are still selling their product through their partners. If anything, its their partners that are at risk here.
National Security Letter.
Two of the largest, most successful companies in the world with respect to computer security and they've not responded to said questions. Hmm...
(BTW, I refuse to argue whether MS is "successful" under any circumstances; they own what, 80% market share in the PC server and workstation OS world, that's success regardless how they attained it.)
Hold on Tonto. Remember, you're not buying SOFTWARE (OS/X), you're paying for the RIGHTS to USE the software WITH RESTRICTIONS. Thats the EULA you click through. We can argue validity of shrink-wrap licenses till the cows come home, but it's standing case law now. The problem is, someone is defeating security mechanisms to break OS/X to get it to run in non-Apple hardware. This is, like it or not, against the law.
Consider an analagy. It's not a great one perhaps, but it's what I will use. You _could_ buy any muffler you want and put it on any car you want. Will it work? Maybe. You might have to modify the car to make it work, but hey, you can; you've got tools, you've got documentation, and you OWN the car, parts, etc. Will it be supported by either manufacturer (car or muffler)? Hell no. Because you're not using it in spec. Hmm , sounds like some kind of restrictions. *cough* warranty card.
Consider now software. You "buy" OS/X retail, though you only have your whitebox box. Someone hooks you up with a cracked OS/X/x86 CD. Where's the connection? First of all, remember you didn't BUY the software, you payed for the RIGHT to USE WITH RESRTRICTIONS. It's in there, reverse engineering ain't cool. And it certainly wouldn't be fair use to subvert TPM, at least not within the confines of the EULA you clicked through. You can't possibly have an expectation of support for Apple-hardware based software when you're really trying to run the "officially" _unavaible_ x86 retail version.
That being said, the crackers have created a market expectation, especially with the press in Wired, for OS/X on x86 (at least, unencumbered by pricey Apple hardware). Joe Blow says to me, "Why _can't_ I run OS/X on that now-spare PC I just upgraded from," or Joey Blowsophsen, a hardware geek, "Man OS/X is the shit, I wish they'd release it retail." I'd have to counter "Because Apple says you have to have their pretty logo stamped on everything that is in, on, and near your computer."
I too dislike many of Apple's business practices, but the reality is that they make a desirable product. Argue against that, and I'll point you back at the fact someone's cracking OS/X to make it available. Perhaps a better solution is, don't pirate the software. Just don't use it, period. Same goes for Windows by the way. Use Open Source if you don't like them; linux is a great and flexible platform. Perhaps by using market forces, we might be able to persuade Apple to release an "official" retail version for the rest of us DIYers. Of course, that puts them in a more direct position against Microsoft in the OS world, but, if it doesn't kill them will make them stronger.
And to the moderators, what the fuck? How can you mod this guy as +5 Interesting? Did he really add anything of value to the posting? Interesting? I don't buy it folks, sorry.
How about a government "owned" infrastructure that gets managed by companies (ISP's) that choose to make it their business? Those companies then charge their customers a "transport" fee for access to/through their network(s), and company-to-company charge a similiar "transport" fee to each other. Sound familiar? What am I paying to Verizon for my DSL? Doesn't this sound similar to how gas and power companies companies move their product around? I honestly don't know who owns the infrastructure (in either power/gas or "internet" example), however I _DO_ know that in all cases, companies have been subsized with my tax dollars to create this infrastructure.
All I'm saying is that the U.S. government should say "oops" and claim ownership for this infrastructure, JUST THE SAME AS INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS. Fucking DUH!
I don't know about anyone else, however I view information such as you've listed as being privileged. Said information may not be so described legally as being privileged or confidential, but that's just how I feel about them. SSN is the most critical of course, but you said discount it. Account numbers, mailing address, Names, birthdates, familial relations and phone numbers could all be gleaned by some amount of investigation by a person or persons so inclined at getting it; it'd be a lot of work, but it could be done. You then have a picture of "me," who I am, what I do, why I do, etc. You might be able to do something with this, like call up Dominoes and order a pizza, or get online and buy a book from Amazon. If you call the right guy at 1st National Bank of Bumfuck, you might just be able to break into my account and steal my money; how much is that guy getting paid to look out for my interests?
All this being said, if a company doesn't do what I consider adequate protection of my information, I don't want to do business with them. It's not that a malicious user couldn't get it any other way; I just don't want to make it any easier for them to get to me. Let them go hog-heaven on the blue-hairs that don't know any better.
And I haven't even talked about your real question. What could one do with a "lowly" account number? Well you tell me. Let's say that's all Joey Malicious has on me. Has he hacked in to your network? Does he have access to your applications and know how to use them? Do you KNOW he hasn't? All I know is that when I call the credit card company, they want the account number and SSN. Are they typing it in with me and can't proceed without me, or are they verifying my answers against what they see on the screen?
What if Joe Malicious works for your company? I'd say you, as a member in the financial industry, are in a much better place to answer this question. YOU need to tell ME that my fears are unfounded, that technically Jane Helper can't review my account info and do a transfer without my account number AND SSN AND mothers maiden name AND first-born sons' DNA because she has to enter it into the system as well. Of course, most financial institutions don't disclose their security practices (or lack thereof) for obvious reasons. None of us outside your "closed-source" way of operating can truly trust the process. All we know is that the threat is real, and we have little control of the problem.
Unfortunately, this is only something that could be dealt with at a trial. Whose rights are more valuable, the content provider, or the paying customer? A person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and security on his or her home computer. Any attempt to circumvent this privacy or security should be construed as trespass. On the flipside, recording artists and the companies that represent them have an expectation that their work is compensated, and that "legal" means to protect their interests be respected. I'm not arguing for the DMCA here, however it _IS_ law. By removing the Sony-installed malware, Mark has broken the law. But so is trespass illegal, so tell me, which is a greater abomination?
I'd vote for trespass, but I also don't have any content to sell. Mark, how's the adminpak selling? I hope you've got some good DRM on your CD's if you're any indication of the talent that's out there...
Honestly, can anyone name a "feature" of Microsoft Office that is so grand, living without it will bring the world to a halt?
Clippy
Nuff said. And they're pulling RSS into the core OS now too? Boy I can't wait for the next winblows.
I was talking to some folks at work who were crabbing about how they had replaced all their old tapes and records for CD's over the years, and how much all that cost. One lady's kid has more than her, yet she paid (of course for all of it). I informed them that they had the opportunity to get in on some cash back since the RIAA sucks donkey balls; of course I didn't say it like that.
Point is... they didn't know about the settlement. I said that's what happens when you don't get involved in your government. Laws that allow companies to do illegal business get passed. Worse, the government itself puts laws in place that are horribly detrimental to the very people it seeks to protect. Same thing happened in Germany between 1919 - 1933; those damned commies, can't trust 'em. For some reason, rationale people didn't make rationale decisions and somehow that crazy fuck Hitler got into office.
We all gotta do our part. Get involved. Watch your government, or better, be your government!
By all means necessary... What I call violence, I can't do , but your kind of violence is stopping me.
Once again, mod this guy up... especially since you have some +2 (+1, whocares) interesting responses. I'm not sure if I understand you _defending_ the DMCA or not. Perhaps we can agree that content providers _shouldn't_ have to worry about their content being stolen.
What is the _real_ issue though? Is it that the companies/cartels whom the RIAA/MPAA represents are simply using the U.S. government to maintain their _monopolies_ on music _distribution_? I like your analgy "in the physical world," but let's be realistic...
Content providers now have tools that allow them to procede with SCOesque lawsuit scare tactics _rather_ than the "content production" we would like them to do. Let's be honest, when was the last real "good" movie released? Ok, perhaps I'm showing a little bit of bias (completely understating my position), but all I'm asking, especially in the case of the RIAA, is that "content providers" get off their lazy asses.
Ever notice how the "Pop" and/or "Top 40" charts have a "variety" of differing music styles represented? I'm sure we all here can agree that there _is_ no innovation left in the music industry. Fuck man, the last actual "good" music I heard lately was the DJ Dangermouse _remix_ album of Jay-Z's Black Albume entitled the Grey Album... and that got yanked pretty quick by the damned DMCA police.
The labels have turned into automatic content producers, creating "music" for the cash-crapping consumers. They don't even try anymore. Now that they have the DMCA, they don't even have to produce content to generate cash... they can just sue shitloads of kids and settle for 3G's here, 4G's there... Making money is making money, right? I just get tired of these big-damned corporations taking my money _AND_ my rights. I should be allowed to do whatever I want with a DVD or CD, so long as I don't violate copyrights. I shouldn't be hampered by some stupid copy protection that's just gonna piss me off till it's circumvented. Why can't the freaking RIAA/MPAA go after the illegal CD/DVD duplicator outfits like they've been doing? I guess it's just more fun to mess with the "little" people.
I think what Timothy was getting at was the criminality of a _German_ purchasing a Nazi poster should not be imposed upon an _American_. I can't imagine that the German government would waste time trying to prosecute an American on such grounds... in that sense perhaps Timothy was using a little hyperbole.
But let's say for arguements sake that they did. What right does the German government have to impress their mores upon American citizens? (I do not wish to argue about the capitalist, nationalist, imperialist pig-dog Americans doing that to other "poor and defenseless" nations. Any comments related as such will be ignored)
All I'm asking for is "dual criminality" language. As I stated in one of my other comments, I do not wish to see my Constitutional protections (freedoms, call them what you will) "protected" by some itty-bitty clause. As an American, all I have is my Constitutional freedoms... I expect that my government do its damndest to _protect_ them everywhere, even at the U.N.
Ok question... So what happens When Country A _cannot_ obtain (either legally or illegally) the keys(s) in question? Country A, then, by all rights is not holding up to their end of the bargain. Country B can then seek some kind of sanctions against Country A for not assisting in their investigation, pursuent to the provisions laid out by said treaty. Of course none of this is an issue if the treaty is not ratified (which is what some of us would like to see), or as a compromise, certain changes are made in the makeup of the treaty, such as the "dual criminality" clause that even the DoJ says is missing.
Basically what you're saying is that this treaty simply makes it "easier" for countries to ensure that criminals of their nation see justice in the country in which the crime was committed. But I ask you, do there not already exist extradition treaties? Why make _yet_another_treaty_? Heaven forbid a country enforce, keep up with, its _other_ treaty obligations...
First of all, mod this guy up. Second of all, the problem with Bush on "cybercrime" is basically the same as every other politician... he doesn't have any competant advisors advising him on the subject. (I'd further argue that none of his advisors on any topic are competant, but that belongs in another forum ;-) )
You're quite right regarding the ICC. Basically he cannot see that his issue with the ICC is exactly the same as his issue _should_ be with this cybercrime treaty. If an American is not breaking the laws of the United States, why should he be held to another country's, perhaps, lower standards?
I'm not saying that the U.S. Gov't shouldn't help arrest a an American bank fraud for the French... But I am saying that a Chinese defector seeking political asylum and citizenship in America shouldn't have to worry about China asking for the U.S.'s help in bringing him back.
This arguement basically gets down to the "dual criminality" provision the DoJ says is missing. If it were me drafting/revising the treaty, I'd put that in there. As an American, I would not want an _INTERNATIONAL_ treaty relegating my Constitutional protections to a _clause_!
At the same time, we geeks still need to deal with our individual congressmen and senators to remove the Big Brother provisions strewn about in our U.S. Code. Why should decent, law-abiding Americans even have the worry of foreign, or our own government, sticking their proverbial noses in our affairs? Must every means of criminal investigation be codified? The FBI should _not_ have blanket access to any ISP's infrastructure where they can (for lack of a better term) etherape an entire ISP's clientele... There _must_ be a technical way, as well as legal restrictions, on how law enforcement may collect information for investigations.
As usual... my 0.02
-Robert
Just out of curiosity, how is choosing between two completely undesirable things "freedom?" I assume you are making a point by putting freedom in quotes. But at the same time, I was making a point about how much most contracts, and I say this with all sincerity, suck balls. But I suppose comments like yours and the other folks are what I get for apparently not being clear enough. Thank you for reminding why I hate posting on slashdot.
So basically what you're arguing is that the only reason playfair is illegal while DeCSS isn't is because of the license? So I counter argue, what is a legal license? Of course because I signed on the dotted lines, it's _supposed_ to be legal, however should we be obligated to give up our first-born sons just because we want access to some content? What we need to admit, at least as a geek community, is that we are, in fact, consumers. We want to hear these songs, watch these movies, play these games. We also want to do it on our own terms. The only reason that contracts like that which are associated with the iTMS or CSS group is because noone has taken a major company to task on the validity of certain clauses in contracts. I mean really, if a music entertainer wants to make it big they sign, in essense an NDA clause in their contract. They can't admit they screwed royally to get you to hear their stuff. Perhaps it's just me, but I find that absurd. I hope this comment makes sense to someone out there; I'm supposed to be reading for class tomorrow and got sidetracked :-)
Holy Shit? The evil empire doing something "cool" like this? Naw, I'm betting they are simply paying some lip service... "See, we're not so bad; we even contribute to your sourceforge." But I'm a cynic. Judge for yourself.
Not that my comment counts, but it's pretty sad when comments are longer than the article posting. Maybe michael was busy when he accepted this submission. Interesting article though.
Or maybe I'm just in a bad mood today.
-Robert
You'll still have to have a license for any music you want to play... assuming that its artists who are covered by restrictive contracts. You'all know about the fees that clubs, bars, and other venues have to pay to the good folks at ASCAP, SESAC and BMI... There really won't be any competition for clearchan-hell. On the other hand, if you've really wanted to see what AXELF sounds like on the "airwaves," this might be just the thing for you.
Of course, I've not said word one about the impending legal action that will most definitely occur. You wanna know what sampling fees can be like, read this and you'll understand why Dangermouse didn't ask for permission and pressed very few albums. I have a feeling that he'll still get poked hard, regardless of the albums limited availability. As one of the posts at Drowned in Sound rightly asserts
What I hope for is that someone finally gets some balls and takes it to those gray-suited folks and says "Fuck you. This is art and cannot be thus constrained by your petty laws." Of course that'd never happen. A shit storm is on the way and artistic license is gonna get flushed.
Long Live the Remixers! Down with the RIAA!
-Bob
Man, it sure is interesting that sco.com is still down, and yet they can issue more press releases. I guess that tells you where their business priorities are. No _real_ computer company would let their main website stay down for a couple of hours, let alone a week.
-Robert
-Robert